User talk:Doverpro110

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Natalie 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake! In the future, please use an edit summary so other users will know why you have made the changes you made. Thanks. Natalie 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Bn seasonthree 2008.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bn seasonthree 2008.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC) --Polly (Parrot) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BeautifulNoiseLOGO.jpg
Hi Doverpro110!

We thank you for uploading Image:BeautifulNoiseLOGO.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BeautifulNoiseLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BeautifulNoiseLogo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bn_seasonthree_2008.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bn_seasonthree_2008.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BeautifulNoiseLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BeautifulNoiseLogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful Noise
Let's discuss this. You've been going around adding mentions of Beautiful Noise to numerous articles about bands. You've also been the major contributor to the Beautiful Noise article under both your account and what I assume is your IP address (since you make identical edits). Since you're going around insisting that every article about every band that's appeared on the show must have a link to the show article in it, it makes it appear as if your agenda on Wikipedia is to promote the show. This is a red flag for spam. See WP:SPAMMER: "Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun." Also, "Contribute cited text, not bare links." The manner in which you've been jumping from article to article adding unnecessary "TV appearances" sections because you believe it's "of INTEREST TO FANS" makes you appear like a spammer, even if that's not your intention. In the article about the show, it's probably appropriate to link to the articles of the acts that have performed on it. However, it's extraneous to add links to the show to every one of those articles. Bands appear on TV shows all the time, after all. When you repeatedly insist that this particular link has to be in there simply because you say it does, it doesn't lead others to assume good faith on your behalf. Threatening to take it to arbitration also doesn't reflect well on you, especially since you haven't tried to discuss the issue on the article's talk page (or on my talk page, since I've been the one reverting you). If you do insist on taking it to arbitration, I feel pretty confident that the community will agree with me that what you're doing seems like spam and shouldn't continue in this manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, since you claim to work for the show, you should take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. This makes me even more convinced that your goal is to promote the show. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, at first you removed the reference because you called it unreferenced trivia - so which is it, spam or unreferenced trivia? - let me ask you a question: is a single released by a band on a now defunct label more interesting or more important to a band's career than a one-hour concert film feature shot in HD and broadcast in 6 countries? Why would an article include every instance of a band's recorded audio career and neglect to include a pertinent instance of a band's audio/visual career? - Perhaps a performance on letterman or leno goes unreferenced, this I understand. But a one-hour feature concert exclusive, the only thing of its kind in that band's ouevre deserves to be referenced no more or less then every example from a band's discography. In fact, I would make the case that an appearance on a show like Beautiful Noise is more interesting and important then most of the discographys included in entirety on many, many artist pages.

You write "Bands appear on TV shows all the time, after all" - really? How many full length concert series are on TV? Besides Austin City Limits and Live at Abbey Road I don't think there is another concert series currently in production. Again, if you are referring to one-off song performances on variety shows, awards shows, etc...then I would agree with you. In this case, I don't believe you know what the show is and I feel you were quick to jump the gun with the "unreferenced trivia" edit. In fact, it's not trivia or spam - it's a reference to an important accomplishment in a band's career.

You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me, as I am with you.

BTW - I too have a history degree. And I can assure you that all historians would agree that audio/visual references are as important as audio references, especially when it comes to music --Doverpro110 10:04, 15 July 2008 (EST)


 * I admit I didn't understand the nature of the show, which it does appear is more significant than an everyday TV appearance. But how does this convey that information? I think you can easily see how I might have construed it as spam or unreferenced trivia, since on the face it seems trivial, it is unreferenced, and it looks like its intention was only to promote the show. I may have jumped the gun a bit when looking at your contributions, but as I said the red flags for spam and conflict of interest went up. Anyway I'll grant that it's a significant performance, but I don't think it merits adding a whole section called "TV apperances" if that's the only thing likely to be in it. I'm going to move it into the "recent activity" section with a reference to the show's taping schedule, unless you can provide a better link. Again, I apologize for mistaking the intent of your edits, but you might want to consider a different approach to adding this information into articles, as the method you've been using raises flags and triggers reverts. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I think your response was quite reasonable. Thank you for taking the time to understand the nature of the edit.  Next time I will try for more clarity in my edit summary.  --Doverpro110 10:38, 15 July 2008 (EST)

Images deleted
Hi Doverpro 110, I've deleted some of your image uploads as copyright violations. When you take an image (like a logo or DVD cover) it is a copyrighted item and you cannot claim that you own the copyright, nor put a free licence on the page. Please drop me a note if this is unclear - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

heres the note its my copyright - why can't i use it? why can't i give it any kind of license I want?

ok ive uploaded again and given it a public domain status - good enough?


 * and you removed 2 more of my pictures!!?? why don't you ask first before deleting?? this really pisses me off and wastes my time. What's with this shoot first ask questions later crap?  Damn you. These are MY PICTURES, MY LOGOS, MY COPYRIGHTS!!!

PUT THE PICTURES BACK UP.
 * Hello Peripitus - as you are now aware, the images you deleted with your quick trigger finger have now been re-uploaded. This is because, as indicated in the descriptions these are images I WHOLLY CREATED AND OWN - you have no authority to remove MY images - do it again and I report you as a vandal. Next time ASK FIRST before deleting. I highly doubt you remove images from larger company's don't pick on mine.
 * How do you think you own the image ? The copyright for the artwork is, from what I can tell, owned by Original Spin Media. The fact that you scanned, webcaptured or otherwise duplicated the image does not make the copyright yours. They are not yours, they are someones elses that you have copied, and you cannot claim that they are under free licences. see derivative work- Peripitus (Talk) 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude. I think I own the image because I do - I am Original Spin Media, I am the President of Original Spin Media - Original Spin Media is my company. I didn't scan, or duplicate or webcapture the image. I created these images and I own them. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that the copyright owner could also be the uploader? As I claimed when I uploaded the images: these are wholly created and owned by me, my company and nobody else. And really, Peripitus, that should be that.
 * Are you then saying that you are at Cargo Film & Releasing, the owning company, and have the authority to release their creative works into the public domain ? If so what we need is a permissions email similar to the below. The reason for this is that there is no other way of verifying that an anonymous Wikipedia editor corresponds to a particular real-life person:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the images [ insert link or image names ].

I agree to release those images to the public domain, with no licensing restriction on future use.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of any applicable laws.

Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

The IMAGES, DATE and NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER need to be filled out for this to be acceptable. This also helps clarify to the owner what they are agreeing to. If they are not filled out, the license will NOT be accepted.

E-Mail the permission e-mails to permissions-en@wikimedia.org . Make sure to include the URL of the image or text. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cargo Film is our distributor for TV rights for the series - Cargo Film is not the copyright holder of the programs nor for any publicity materials created to market the programs. I will submit the form with the proper copyright holders information, but it seems to me that your methods are rather arbitrary - not to mention that you have acted upon a presumption of guilt without knowing the facts. This is what we call ignorant in English.
 * Thank you for this. I ask though, if a 12-year-old kid from India created an account on Wikipedia, grabbed copyrighted images from somewhere and uploaded them here claiming to own them....how can we tell that person from the real copyrightholder ? This is what the permissions email system is for. We get so many people uploading here in blatant violation of copyright that it may seem to some that an unduly harsh line is taken - Peripitus (Talk) 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Bn3logoredux.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bn3logoredux.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - ok as the copyright holder I've given it over to the public domain - I trust this is suitable thanks for your concern

Possibly unfree File:SolosLogo.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SolosLogo.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. Do whatever you want I really am tired of uploading my images, filling in the correct copyright allocation and then having some moron such as yourself tell me I don't own my own copyright. Whatever. Remove it I don't give a crap anymore. You'll notice I've already removed the link from the solos page to the solos picture.

Proposed deletion of Original Spin Media


The article Original Spin Media has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; an article created by a SPA account and tagged notability since 2008.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Logo for The Berkley Sessions.jpg


The file File:Logo for The Berkley Sessions.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)